Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Karaeng Matoaya (talk · contribs) 11:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll take this, though I might request a second opinion from someone better-versed in the archaeology. Disclaimers:

• This is my first time doing a GA review, which is why I might ask for a second opinion
• I am Korean and was educated in the country (as you can tell from my recent edits), but I will do my best to be as neutral as possible
• I was unaware of the apparently intense edit warring that has previously taken place on the article until today
• I gave a barnstar to a user involved in the article's controversies a few hours ago, but this was out of genuine appreciation for their waka-related pages and is unconnected to this article's history

Cheers, Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The simple things:

• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Y
• Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y

The article is fairly long and I've only looked at two sections in-depth, but unfortunately I've found a few issues in both. Apologies in advance if I'm a bit stringent—but I'd like to be as careful as I possibly can with controversial topics like these.

"Writing" section

1) "Some of these scholars from Baekje wrote and edited much of the Nihon Shoki, one of Japan's earliest works of history."

While Ch'on 1974 seems not to be available online, this claim is not made in Taro Sakamoto's 1970 The Six National Histories of Japan (translated in 1991), where it is said:

As for the people who did the actual work of compilation, I have mentioned Ki Kiyondo and Miyake Fujimaro... Ota's investigation indicates a possible connection between O Yasumaro and Nihon Shoki. Further research is needed on these points... None of the other compilers is named... All that is clearly recorded are the names of the twelve people commanded by Emperor Tenmu in 681 to set in order the Imperial Chronicles and the Fundamental Dicta. They organized the original materials of Nihon Shoki Of these twelve people, two were imperial princes, four were princes and six were ministers of state... From the point of view of lineage, two were Imperial clans (Kamitsukeno and Heguri), three were Divine clans (Azumi, Imbe, and Nakatomi), and one was a Sundry [immigrant] clan (Naniwa).

This seems to belie the article's claim that significant parts of the Nihon Shoki was written not just by people descended from Baekje migrants, but "scholars from Baekje."

2) "The pronunciation of Chinese characters at this period thus may well reflect that current in the Baekje kingdom."

This contradicts the cited source. "May well" means "likely", but the source actually says:

Owing to a paucity of evidence, little is known about Sino-Paekche and other varieties of Sino-Korean... Hence it is impossible to determine whether the early Japanese were learning Sino-Paekche readings, authentic Chinese readings, or readings which were somewhere in between.

The source admits that the only evidence of Sino-Baekje readings being adopted in Japan is circumstantial, and if the sentence is kept it should be marked as such.

3) Kana and gugyeol

The relationship between kana and gugyeol is not nearly as clear-cut as the article suggests. While the influence of Korean sinography on the Japanese man'yogana tradition is undeniable, whether Japanese borrowed a significant number of actual gugyeol glyphs is disputable. While Frellesvig supports a direct borrowing, there are actually strong arguments against the notion, as both Zev Handel (2019, Sinography: The Borrowing and Adaption of the Chinese Script, pp. 183, 200-202) and John Whitman (2011, "The Ubiquity of the Gloss," available here) notes:

A comparison of Japanese katakana with Korean kugyŏl shows strikingly obvious similarities in the technique of isolation and the resulting letter shapes. But it also makes clear that although the technique of phonological glossing of Literary Sinitic texts using PAPs may have been borrowed from Korea into Japan, the actual practice diverged very early, possibly from the beginning. The PAP sets used in each tradition were different, the specific graphs used to represent syllables (even syllables pronounced essentially identically in both languages, like /ni/), and the end result of abbreviation (even of the same graphs) differed in most cases. Table 5.10 gives four examples of kugyŏl graphs and kana graphs with identical forms, but which derive in each tradition from different sinograms with different phonographic values, followed by two examples where the graphic origins are identical.

[Handel 2019, p. 183]

However, of the 147 source characters for Koryŏ period kugyŏl graphs listed by Paek (2005: 23-27), only 20 show this match in form and function (Note that both scripts used multiple alternate phonographs for the same syllable.) All 20 are commonly used phonograms not just in Korea and Japan but in the entire Sinosphere. In the case of other phonograms, for example kugyŏl  /ni/ and katakana 尓, 仁 /ni/, the two scripts make different choices for the same syllable, even though 尼 is a fairly widely attested ongana (Sino-Japanese) phonogram in Japanese 8th century materials as well. If kugyŏl graphs were directly borrowed to form the basis for katakana, we would expect to find exact matches in every case where Japanese and Korean had homophonous syllables, but we do not. The set of phonograms used in Japan in the 8th century formed a well established syllabary (Case 2000). Katakana were selected from this syllabary. Here again, focusing on the direct borrowing of graphs is an example of graphic fixation. It is possible that the technique of abbreviated phonogram glossing in Japan was influenced by models from Silla, without it being the case that each individual gloss was borrowed.

[Whitman 2011, p. 18]

In my opinion, "Japanese katakana share many symbols with Korean Gugyeol, for example, suggesting the former arose in part at least from scribal practices in Korea" should not be presented as simple fact, with the mildly stated "though the historical connections between the two systems are obscure" being the only caveat.

"Shipbuilding" section

1) "Technicians sent from the Korean kingdom of Silla introduced advanced shipbuilding techniques to Japan for the first time."

One of the sources (Kim 2012) is probably too general to be used to support such a specific statement, and I simply can't find Lee Hyoun-jun's articles anywhere outside Wikipedia mirrors. Could you give me their Hangul name? I can't find archaeological support for the statement in Miyashita 2006, which, although only a master's thesis, is cited in The Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology. Miyashita says only:

Points of similarity between Korea and Japan have been confirmed in iconographic evidence, showing that there is a strong cultural linkage... It is interesting that the example found in Korea had an inrotsugi and kannuki technique and iron nails for the fastening which were the same as examples from Japan, although its date is in more recent years. It is feasible that these techniques of composite logboats derived from the continent and were brought to Japan along with wet-rice cultivation and metal-working technology.

And does not mention any Silla influence, although connections to Korea are covered explicitly.

2) "In the first half of the ninth century, the private fleet of the Silla merchant Jang Bogo dominated the Yellow Sea and maritime trade between China and Japan. As ambassador to China, Fujiwara no Tsunetsugu chartered Korean vessels for his embassy to the mainland in 838, as they were more seaworthy. A Japanese court edict issued in 839 ordered that Kyūshū construct a "Silla ship" to cope with stormy weather."

Most of this material is not germane to the stated article topic because it does not explain how Korean shipbuilding influenced Japan, only that it was superior to Japan's.

Final notes

I'm withdrawing the GA review per the GA submitter's request, but I do hope the issues with these two sections are addressed.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)